History has the annoying tendency to repeat itself. And it reminds us that the rule of entropy is alive and well. In other words, Vatican II and its aftermath are happening in the SSPX today.

The SSPX, the once staunch defender of Tradition, has crumbled into the proverbial pottage of liberal Trads, conservative Trads and the traditional Trads (Resistance). That Menzingen has turned liberal has by now become clear to most Traditionalists.

For those who want to keep their Faith and therefore want to remain traditional, the difficulty is to know who is their friend and who is their enemy. The liberal Traditionalists are easily recognized because, generally speaking, they are transparent. For example, the neo-SSPX, by their April 15, 2012 Declaration, has clearly spelled out that it accepts the modernism of conciliar Rome (including the Indult).

But how to spot the conservative Traditionalists, those who, while defending Tradition, lead Traditionalists little by little towards conservatism (softening on principles) and eventually into liberalism (and inevitably into conciliarism) is more difficult, possibly because conservative Traditionalists tend to be nice. But, make no mistake about it, their niceness is more dangerous because they soften us bit by bit (give us a little poison continuously) until we no longer think like Traditionalists.

Take, for example, Michael Davies, a staunch defender of Tradition. In spite of writing ‘tough’, he essentially preached ‘work from within’ and, like all conservative Catholics of the post-Vatican II era, ended up in conciliar Rome (indult).

And so today, history once again repeats itself. As Vatican II is taking place in the SSPX, conservative Traditionalists are doing exactly what conservative Catholics did 40 years ago: work from within – and – lead Traditionalists to liberalism.

Take for example, Catholic Family News (CFN).

The editorial policy of CFN seems to be to refrain from reporting the news or to report only that news which has or would have the approval of the SSPX.

For example, CFN has never commented on the April 15th Declaration. How can a shift of this magnitude not be reported?

CFN is silent on the expulsion of the SSPX priests who are opposed to a practical deal with conciliar Rome.

While CFN does not report on the Resistance seminaries that are forming in various parts of the world, it does print a half-page SSPX advertisement (Jan. 2014, p.15) for the new seminary in Virginia. According to the ad, donating $5,000 will merit a “plaque” which will be placed “inside the room” funded by the donor. As an aside, I remember Bishop Fellay saying in a Toronto conference before the General Chapter of 2006 (no doubt his canvassing speech) that he would never accept a “room in the zoo” (his own words) in the conciliar Church. So today, CFN is encouraging its readers to purchase a “room” in the rebranded SSPX zoo!

And to add insult to injury, by way of encouraging payment for this “room”, the SSPX ad says “if necessary, join with others”, implying that if the faithful cannot afford the lump sum of 5,000 dollars, they may, though only “if necessary, join with others”. Since when has CFN had to rely on sponsors who patronize CFN readers?

CFN does not inform its readers that over Christmas in Münich, the German SSPX priory advertised daily Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Ought the readers not be informed that the SSPX has become so liberal that it now recognizes the legitimacy of the NOM and thus effectively promotes the demotion of the Traditional Mass to second place?

Perhaps it is beneath the dignity of CFN to report that the once Traditional SSPX publication in India has recently been given a rebranded name The Flying Squirrel. Is it a joke or an insult?

Would CFN readers be concerned to learn that in The Flying Squirrel, Traditionalists in Asia are encouraged to meditate on a sermon given by the present Pope and are given “centering” tips on how to improve their meditation techniques?

It is a strange coincidence that CFN (Jan. 2014, p.10) carries an article “Marvelous Fruits of the Holy Rosary” right at the time when the SSPX faithful are asked to start another Rosary Crusade. Why not write an in-depth analysis on the second intention and explain in plain language who is asked to return where?

The list of examples could go on.

The sad reality is that CFN has become a conservative tool in the hands of the SSPX to present a cleaner – a more Traditional – spin on the rebranded SSPX policy in order to gently reign us into liberalism and conciliarism (Indult).

The rule of entropy is alive and well in the spirit of conciliarism. It worked on most NO Catholics in the aftermath of Vatican II. Will it work on Traditional Catholics in the aftermath of the SSPX crisis? Will history repeat itself once again?

Sister Constance, TOSF

http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/2014/01/27/history-repeats-itself/